> 1) why should nVidia trust the attackers? nVdia might give in, and the files might still be leaked. They might, but they will surely be released if they choo

> 1) why should nVidia trust the attackers? nVdia might give in, and the files might still be leaked. They might, but they will surely be released if they choose to ignore the attackers. Given the choices between a bad outcome happening potentially and surely, which one would you choose? > 3)It is well possible the leak is not as damaging as it looks. People in the industry swap jobs all the time, and take knowledge with them. People accidentally do small leaks all the time, being sloppy with data entrusted to them. It seems reasonable for other big organizations to already have some level of knowledge of the content. I still fail to see the logic. Assuming the attackers are honest, the choice is between: a) drivers public b) everything (which includes drivers) public Option a) garners significant sympathy. What is the incentive to choose b)? > They also open themselves up to future ransomers ('Danegeld'). This is the only argument that makes a bit of sense to me. > especially combined with a 'we'll very publicly sue the attackers in the ground, as an example for all wannabes' response. That can only happen if they are caught.